alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



Exhibit 31.6
  RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)
    CERTIFICATION
    OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF CENTRAL ILLINOIS PUBLIC
    SERVICE COMPANY
    (required by Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
    Form 10-K
      Rules 13a-15(e) 15d-15(e)) Rules 13a-15(f) 15d-15(f))
  a)
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
    disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
    supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
    registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
    known to us by others within those entities, particularly during
    the period in which this report is being prepared; b)
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or
    caused such internal control over financial reporting to be
    designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance
    regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
    preparation of financial statements for external purposes in
    accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; c)
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
    controls and procedures and presented in this report our
    conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
    and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
    report based on such evaluation; and d)
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
    internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
    the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
    registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
    report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
    materially affect, the registrants internal control over
    financial reporting; and    a)
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
    design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
    which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
    registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
    report financial information; and b)
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
    other employees who have a significant role in the
    registrants internal control over financial reporting.  Date:
    February 29, 2008
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    HomeExplore the Capitol CampusGrounds Features
Lady Bird Johnson Tree
        
                  The Basics
      
Materials
    Chinese Kousa Dogwood

Year
    1968

Location
      
Capitol Square, N.E.

U.S. Capitol Grounds

                  View on Map

Text of the Plaque

U.S. Capitol Grounds
Memorial Tree

*Cornus kousa*
(Chinese Kousa Dogwood)

Planted by
Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson

Sponsored by
The Ladies of the Senate

April 30, 1968

Honoree Details

First Lady Claudia Alta "Lady Bird" Johnson is known for her interest in horticulture and her initiative in the 1960s to beautify America's highways and parks.

Tree Details

The Kousa Dogwood has a showy flower and red globose fruits in the fall.
          
    
      Image Gallery
    
    The Lady Bird Johnson tree on the U.S. Capitol Grounds in spring.

The Lady Bird Johnson tree on the U.S. Capitol Grounds in spring.
    The Lady Bird Johnson tree on the U.S. Capitol Grounds in fall.

The Lady Bird Johnson tree on the U.S. Capitol Grounds in fall.
    The Lady Bird Johnson tree on the U.S. Capitol Grounds in winter.

The Lady Bird Johnson tree on the U.S. Capitol Grounds in winter.
    The Lady Bird Johnson tree on the U.S. Capitol Grounds in summer.

The Lady Bird Johnson tree on the U.S. Capitol Grounds in summer.

      Previous Image
        Next Image

          The Lady Bird Johnson tree on the U.S. Capitol Grounds in spring.
      The Lady Bird Johnson tree on the U.S. Capitol Grounds in fall.
      The Lady Bird Johnson tree on the U.S. Capitol Grounds in winter.
      The Lady Bird Johnson tree on the U.S. Capitol Grounds in summer. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
22904

#### State v. Aspili

Vacated and Remanded
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 21, 2019

NO. 03-19-00058-CR

Ex parte Gaspar Benavides Govea

APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT OF LLANO COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND TRIANA

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

CONCURRING OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the order denying appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus signed 

by the trial court. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that 

there was no reversible error in the order. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s order 

denying appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus. Appellant shall pay all costs relating 

to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
Exhibit 4.1


 


 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


July 18, 2018


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust 390 (the “Fund”)


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for the Fund, consisting of the unit investment trust (the “Trust”) included in
the Registration Statement relating to the Fund. We enclosed a list of the securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date
hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our evaluation of such securities as of close of business on July 17, 2018, in accordance
with the valuation method set forth in the applicable Standard Terms and Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreement. We consent to
the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing the evaluations of the Trust securities in the Registration
Statement (No. 333-224604) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect to the registration of the sale of the
Units of the Trust and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


Very truly yours,


 


/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO                                 


Gerardo Cipriano


Vice President
fAA-2010 -0"[44

Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal bfen discussed?

Organization Person Cont~cted Date Response

National Bminess Aircraft Assodalion Eli Cotti 8/31/09 -

Regional Airline Association Dave Lotterer 8/31/09 -

Aircraft OWllel'S & Pilots Association Robert Haekm:m 8/31/09 -

ATA Craig li'abian 8/31/09 -

ATA MLopez 8/31109 -

09/29/06
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-14-00461-CV

The State of Texas

v.

One (1) 2009 Chevrolet Silverado Pickup, VIN #3GCEC13C29G221052, One (1) Smith 

& Wesson SW40VE.40, Serial #RBK8834 and Bryco Arms Chrome 380 Auto Serial 

#1222556

On Appeal from the

105th District Court of Kleberg County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 13-082-D

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Each party shall bear their own costs 

relating to this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

September 11, 2014
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 199 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 199

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        April 14, 2015.
    Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are hereby, elected to 
the following standing committees of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Homeland Security: Mr. Meehan, to rank immediately after Mr. 
Marino.
    Commitee on Rules: Mr. Byrne and Mr. Newhouse.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the filing by Applied Energetics, Inc. (the “company”) of its
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009 (the
“Report”) I, Joseph C. Hayden, Principal Executive Officer of the company,
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:




(i)
              the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and


(ii)
            the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
      company.




This
certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by the
principal executive officer of Applied Energetics, Inc. with the
requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not be
used for any other purposes. A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to Applied Energetics, Inc. and will
be retained by Applied Energetics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




/s/ Joseph C. HaydenJoseph
      C. HaydenChief
      Operating Officer and Principal Executive
  Officer





Date:  August
10, 2009
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 11 - 00178 - CR

DERECK JAMISON SMITH APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- Appellant Dereck Jamison Smith entered an open plea of guilty to burglary of a habitation with intent to commit aggravated robbery and pleaded true to a prior felony conviction alleged in the repeat offender notice

. The trial court sentenced Smith to thir ty years’ confinement at the conclusion of the punishment hearing

. Smith ’s court

- appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. C ounsel avers that in

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

his professional opinion, the appeal is fr ivolous. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See 386 U. S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). This court infor med Smith that he could file
a pro se brief, but he did not do so . T he State did not submit a brief

. Once an appellant’s court

- appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders , this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State , 904 S.W.2d 920, 922

– 23 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only then may we grant c ounsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). We hav e carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State , 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment

.

BILL MEIER JUSTICE3

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; MEIER and GABRIEL, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b )
DELIVERED: December 15 , 201 1
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    HomeExplore the Capitol CampusThe Art Collection
Philip Kearny Statue
        
                  The Basics
      
Artist
      
Henry Kirke Brown

Materials
    Bronze

Year
    1888

Location
      
Hall of Columns

This statue of Philip Kearny was given to the National Statuary Hall Collection by New Jersey in 1888.

Philip Kearny was born on June 1, 1814, in New York City to a rich and socially prominent family. Because his mother died when he was quite young, Kearny spent his early years in a series of boarding schools and made his home with his maternal grandfather. Kearny attended Columbia University and studied law, but he decided to follow a military career.

As a second lieutenant in the First United States Dragoons, commanded by his uncle, Kearny was sent to France to study cavalry tactics. He soon distinguished himself when he served with the *Chasseurs d'Afrique* in Algiers in 1840. He returned to the United States and became an aide-de-camp to General Alexander Macomb, commander-in-chief of the army, and later to his successor, General Winfield Scott. He then married, started a family, and resigned his commission in 1846. He was immediately called back into service, however, to lead the advance on Mexico City in the Mexican War of the same year. Kearny's left arm was shattered in battle and had to be amputated.

Kearny again withdrew from military life, but in 1859 he served on the staff of General Morris in France. He returned to the United States at the outbreak of the Civil War and served as a brigadier general with the Army of the Potomac. He lost his life in the Battle of Chantilly, Virginia, on September 1, 1862. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2011-1321

Directorate Identifier: 2011NM045AD

A320-28-1162, R01 --- 7/16/08

A320-28-1162 --- 2/6/08

A320-28-1105, R02 --- 3/11/05

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
July 30, 1998

20018

#### Estate of Romero, In re

Affirmed
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED APRIL 17, 2015

NO. 03-13-00480-CV

Roger Wisard and Katherine Armstrong, Appellants

v.

Henry Koenig and Janis Koenig d/b/a Rio Vista Resort, Appellees

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT OF LLANO COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, FIELD, AND ABOUSSIE*

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE ABOUSSIE

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on June 18, 2013. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. The appellants

shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.

* Before Marilyn Aboussie, Chief Justice (retired), Third Court of Appeals, sitting by 

assignment. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 74.003(b).
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.1
Non-Employee Director Compensation


Effective July 1, 2018, the cash compensation payable to non-employee directors of the Board is as follows, paid quarterly in advance:


	
		
	Retainer
	Amount

	Annual
	$30,000

	Chairman of the Board
	$20,000

	Committee Service
	$5,000

	Audit Committee Chair
	$15,000

	Compensation Committee Chair
	$8,000

	Corporate Governance Committee Chair
	$6,000






The equity compensation payable to non-employee directors of the Board is pursuant to the iPass Inc. Amended and Restated 2003 Non-Employee Directors Plan, in which each non-employee director when first elected to the Board will receive, as an initial grant, a restricted stock award (“RSA”) with a value of $74,380, and at each annual meeting each non-employee director will receive, as an annual grant, an RSA with a value of $47,642.
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply11796Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Barron Dill (not verified)PermalinkFebruary 23, 2022 - 10:28amThat is awesome and I hope your story is an inspiration to many others.
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*Steven Pankow, Russell M. Leech, Vincent P. Masterson, Joseph J. Cooley, and Stephen B. Moskal, Defendants.

County Court, Erie County,

May 20, 1959.

*144
      *Anthony Manguso, Corporation Counsel,*for City of Buffalo.

*Carman F. Ball, District Attorney (George B. Blair*of counsel), for plaintiff.

Burke I. Burke, J.

The September 1958 Grand Jury of Brie County, held over for several months by order of the Supreme Court, conducted an investigation into the paving and street resurfacing program of the City of Buffalo.

As the result of the investigation, both present and former officials of the City of Buffalo were indicted and charged with the crimes of conspiracy and bribery. In its report to the court, the Grand Jury recommended that City of Buffalo officials examine the possibility of rescinding certain paving contracts and of recovering from collusive bidders the amounts of money paid under said contracts.

Subsequent to the Grand Jury report, the Common Council of the City of Buffalo adopted a resolution directing the Corporation Counsel to consider the advisability of commencing action against various contractors with a view of recovering from collusive bidders certain amounts of money paid under said contracts and to apply for permission to inspect the Grand Jury minutes of the proceedings relative to paving and resurfacing work in the City of Buffalo.

The- Corporation Counsel now makes application for permission to inspect said Grand Jury minutes.

Under section 952-t of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court in its discretion may permit inspection of Grand Jury minutes by an indicted defendant, upon proper grounds, for the purpose of a motion to dismiss the indictment. The case law of ‘this State indicates that the court in its discretion may permit an inspection when the purpose is criminal law enforcement or investigation of alleged violations of the criminal law. The stated purpose of the present motion is to afford information for the contemplation and possible institution of civil, actions. Should the court exercise its discretion to extend further the matter of inspection, unless an absolute necessity exists, as shown by all the facts and circumstances?

The District Attorney has stated that the indictment will be moved promptly for trial. The transcript of the trial will provide the city with substantially the same if not more information *145than was heard by the Grand Jury. It appears therefore that the court should not exercise its discretion to make further inroads into the historic secrecy of Grand Jury proceedings.

The motion is denied.

Submit order.